The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".

"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added.

"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."

People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.

Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.

"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."

===================================

For some reason, this article annoys, frustrates and distresses me:

“The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. ”

Firstly, I think that poles are inherently poor ways of data collection. People tend to put what they think the questioner wants to hear, and not necessarily what they genuinely think. Also, we have no idea what the questions are and how leading they were. We can only assume that MORI put forward non-leading questions. Secondly, the “public” (whoever they are – we don’t know this cross-section) are often more ready in their criticism of government and politicians than they are in their support. You don’t often hear “the man on the street” saying “yes, I think the government is absolutely right.” Thirdly, what is meant by “still questioning climate change.”? Do they mean “still questioning whether it exists or not” or do they mean “questioning its degree of effect” or do they mean “still analysing datasets and models and are still producing new output” and so on. To me, there is a media spin that hopes to imply to its readers that scientists do not think that climate change really is occurring. Fourthly, 56% is only just over half, and therefore 44% DO think that climate change is as genuine as the scientists. I don’t know what percentage you would actually expect to believe this; 100% seems too many and unlikely, 50% perhaps too few. However, if at this stage you expected to have 50% accepting that climate change was an actuality, then 56% is statistically significant at a 95% level for this size of population. But if you alter it down even a point or so (and why not if people are generally sceptical), than it is no longer significant at all, and increasingly conforms to a normal distribution. (I tested it with a published formula that didn't go into the text here well. I'm more than happy to share it with anyone via PM)

“There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.”

I don’t actually know where to begin with this part – to me it’s just a ridiculous suggestion that there is a global consortium that’s proposing climate change as a means to increase their coffers. It’s ridiculous also that the weather experienced by “the public” is so changeable, so they are getting the effects first hand, but would still deny that it isn’t happening. As I’ve posted before, I have absolutely no problem with making money out of amelioration – it could and perhaps should be business lead. We’re all in our own way responsible for where we are now, why shouldn’t we pay to restore it? Not necessarily on top of what we already pay, but in other ways – in buying state of the art renewables for example, or when we buy a new greener car. The products we buy in the future can be part of this process.

“The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change. “

Of course they are! Because these are immediate nuisances or the media have given them such airtime that people consider them to be immediately life-threatening. Climate change has simply not been around as long as the others have.

“The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate. “

What did the rest say?

"Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles”. “We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added. “

But this is not reflected in the pole results. It makes the public seem a little stupid, which I’m sure they’re not – would they really say “I think that scientists are over-exaggerating the effects of climate change to fill their own pockets! No, I don’t think climate change is as bad as all that! Right, I’m off canoeing down the high street to get some sand-bags for the unprecedented amount of rain we’ve had over the last 24 hours. What climate change?”

"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."

Or perhaps they are? And any how, what is meant by a "significant number"? A statistically significantly number? If it isn't, then it isn't science.

At least we finish on a realistic note…..

“People had been influenced by counter-arguments”, he said.

Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.

"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."

When will we see “Climate change IS happening; It’s happening RIGHT NOW; Get your head out of the sand, and your fingers out of your ears - if you don’t do something NOW, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST!” ?

« Last Edit: 03/07/2007 14:43:09 by dentstudent »

Logged

another_someone

“The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. ”

Firstly, I think that poles are inherently poor ways of data collection. People tend to put what they think the questioner wants to hear, and not necessarily what they genuinely think. Also, we have no idea what the questions are and how leading they were. We can only assume that MORI put forward non-leading questions. Secondly, the “public” (whoever they are – we don’t know this cross-section) are often more ready in their criticism of government and politicians than they are in their support. You don’t often hear “the man on the street” saying “yes, I think the government is absolutely right.” Thirdly, what is meant by “still questioning climate change.”? Do they mean “still questioning whether it exists or not” or do they mean “questioning its degree of effect” or do they mean “still analysing datasets and models and are still producing new output” and so on. To me, there is a media spin that hopes to imply to its readers that scientists do not think that climate change really is occurring. Fourthly, 56% is only just over half, and therefore 44% DO think that climate change is as genuine as the scientists. I don’t know what percentage you would actually expect to believe this; 100% seems too many and unlikely, 50% perhaps too few. However, if at this stage you expected to have 50% accepting that climate change was an actuality, then 56% is statistically significant at a 95% level for this size of population. But if you alter it down even a point or so (and why not if people are generally sceptical), than it is no longer significant at all, and increasingly conforms to a normal distribution. (I tested it with a published formula that didn't go into the text here well. I'm more than happy to share it with anyone via PM)

“There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.”

I don’t actually know where to begin with this part – to me it’s just a ridiculous suggestion that there is a global consortium that’s proposing climate change as a means to increase their coffers.

There are differences between arguing about a deliberate and determined conspiracy, which I agree is wholly implausible; and a systemic conspiracy, where no individual actually deliberately colludes to create the situation, but where each person independently is motivated to act in a way that has a collective effect as if it were a conspiracy.

As I’ve posted before, I have absolutely no problem with making money out of amelioration – it could and perhaps should be business lead. We’re all in our own way responsible for where we are now, why shouldn’t we pay to restore it? Not necessarily on top of what we already pay, but in other ways – in buying state of the art renewables for example, or when we buy a new greener car.

But the past can never be restored - all you can do is change to a different kind of future, but all futures will still be different from the past. Who is to say that greener cars will lead to a better future, or just a different set of problems.

As for responsibility - in what way are we 'responsible' for what? Yes, arguably we are responsible for our own futures (more so that than to become obsessed by responsibility for a past that has happened); but to what extent do we actually have control over a future that we still do not understand.

“The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change. “

Of course they are! Because these are immediate nuisances or the media have given them such airtime that people consider them to be immediately life-threatening. Climate change has simply not been around as long as the others have.

Climate change has been around as long as there has been climate.

The difference is not about how long climate change has been around, but how long people have been able to believe they can control or significantly influence climate. If you tell people that society should be able to control the problems of graffiti, they will believe this; but if you tell them that human society can control future climate, they will be somewhat more sceptical.

Yes, climate is life threatening - it always has been. Do you really believe that whatever you do, you can ever make the climate safe? If not, then why spend vast resources making little difference (we may debate how little that difference may be, but no-one I have heard seems to be suggesting that somehow floods and hurricanes will never happen if we only undertake this massive project).

“The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate. “

What did the rest say?

Exactly so.

In any case, the term 'unprecedented' is a rather vague term that is open to interpretation. It simply means there is no precedent for the exact effects that humans are having on the climate - but is suggests in no way what those effects are, or what the magnitude of the effects are.

It is the usual abuse of statistics - ask a very broad statement, and then apply a very narrow interpretation to the answer.

"Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles”. “We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added. “

The key issue here is "that humans have had at least some part to play in this".

The key issue is what amounts to some? Are we to make vast investments in social change, which inevitably must have its cost elsewhere (because everything must have a cost), only to find that this word 'some' refers to some minuscule amount of little significance? It is not even clear from this statement what the direction of change humans have on the environment is (much industrial pollution in the early 20th century actually did more to cool the climate by causing more sunlight to be reflected back out into space (ofcourse, this was the era when climatologists were obsessed by the comming of the next ice age) and our attempts to clean up industrial pollution has increased sunlight getting to ground level, thus increasing global warming, as well as increasing risks of skin cancer).

"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."

When will we see “Climate change IS happening; It’s happening RIGHT NOW; Get your head out of the sand, and your fingers out of your ears - if you don’t do something NOW, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST!” ?

This has always been so.

Yes, we need to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate; but this is very different from suggesting that we can, or ever could, stop the climate from changing.

Ofcourse, "if you don’t do something NOW, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST!", but even if you do something now, whatever you do now, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST - that is what a constantly changing environment does.

“The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. ”

Firstly, I think that poles are inherently poor ways of data collection. People tend to put what they think the questioner wants to hear, and not necessarily what they genuinely think. Also, we have no idea what the questions are and how leading they were. We can only assume that MORI put forward non-leading questions. Secondly, the “public” (whoever they are – we don’t know this cross-section) are often more ready in their criticism of government and politicians than they are in their support. You don’t often hear “the man on the street” saying “yes, I think the government is absolutely right.” Thirdly, what is meant by “still questioning climate change.”? Do they mean “still questioning whether it exists or not” or do they mean “questioning its degree of effect” or do they mean “still analysing datasets and models and are still producing new output” and so on. To me, there is a media spin that hopes to imply to its readers that scientists do not think that climate change really is occurring. Fourthly, 56% is only just over half, and therefore 44% DO think that climate change is as genuine as the scientists. I don’t know what percentage you would actually expect to believe this; 100% seems too many and unlikely, 50% perhaps too few. However, if at this stage you expected to have 50% accepting that climate change was an actuality, then 56% is statistically significant at a 95% level for this size of population. But if you alter it down even a point or so (and why not if people are generally sceptical), than it is no longer significant at all, and increasingly conforms to a normal distribution. (I tested it with a published formula that didn't go into the text here well. I'm more than happy to share it with anyone via PM)

“There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.”

I don’t actually know where to begin with this part – to me it’s just a ridiculous suggestion that there is a global consortium that’s proposing climate change as a means to increase their coffers.

There are differences between arguing about a deliberate and determined conspiracy, which I agree is wholly implausible; and a systemic conspiracy, where no individual actually deliberately colludes to create the situation, but where each person independently is motivated to act in a way that has a collective effect as if it were a conspiracy.

Sure, but in either case, to speculate that this is a universal and sole aim of scientists, whether manifested independently or as a group when dealing with climate change is surely tantamount to slander. Of course, scientists are always looking for where the money is to create new projects, but this is a top-down system. Bottom-up approaches can work on a local and specific scale, but not on this kind.

As I’ve posted before, I have absolutely no problem with making money out of amelioration – it could and perhaps should be business lead. We’re all in our own way responsible for where we are now, why shouldn’t we pay to restore it? Not necessarily on top of what we already pay, but in other ways – in buying state of the art renewables for example, or when we buy a new greener car.

But the past can never be restored - all you can do is change to a different kind of future, but all futures will still be different from the past. Who is to say that greener cars will lead to a better future, or just a different set of problems.

As for responsibility - in what way are we 'responsible' for what? Yes, arguably we are responsible for our own futures (more so that than to become obsessed by responsibility for a past that has happened); but to what extent do we actually have control over a future that we still do not understand.

Yes, ok. There may be some semantics at play here in avoidance of tautological use of ameliorate – “restored” was probably not a good word to use. I wanted to state about the reduction of GHG’s back to a level within the natural cycle of amounts found in the atmosphere, so for example, CO2 to return to sub 300 ppm. These cycles can be detected from ice-cores.

“The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change. “

Of course they are! Because these are immediate nuisances or the media have given them such airtime that people consider them to be immediately life-threatening. Climate change has simply not been around as long as the others have.

Climate change has been around as long as there has been climate.

The difference is not about how long climate change has been around, but how long people have been able to believe they can control or significantly influence climate. If you tell people that society should be able to control the problems of graffiti, they will believe this; but if you tell them that human society can control future climate, they will be somewhat more sceptical.

Yes, climate is life threatening - it always has been. Do you really believe that whatever you do, you can ever make the climate safe? If not, then why spend vast resources making little difference (we may debate how little that difference may be, but no-one I have heard seems to be suggesting that somehow floods and hurricanes will never happen if we only undertake this massive project).

My point here was the very nature of the human temporal and environmental scale contrasting with their personal relevance. Graffiti, crime and so on are more readily visible and tangible - people have a greater feel of the capacity to control these. You can report a crime or stop a car being stolen, clean off the graffiti and dog’s mess for example. Climate, its effect on the world and an individuals impact on it is a difficult concept to get across. In some ways, it’s the same as having the vote; the kind of “there are so many people voting, mine isn’t going to make any difference; what can I do, I’m only 1 person” mentality. It seems obvious to me that these everyday items are going to be more immediately important than climate change. There are probably hundreds more; NHS, schools, getting food on the table to name but 3. This is why it is not at all surprising that climate change may not be many peoples top priority. But under no circumstance can this be reason enough to ignore it.

“The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate. “

What did the rest say?

Exactly so.

In any case, the term 'unprecedented' is a rather vague term that is open to interpretation. It simply means there is no precedent for the exact effects that humans are having on the climate - but is suggests in no way what those effects are, or what the magnitude of the effects are.

It is the usual abuse of statistics - ask a very broad statement, and then apply a very narrow interpretation to the answer.

"Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles”. “We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added. “

The key issue here is "that humans have had at least some part to play in this".

The key issue is what amounts to some? Are we to make vast investments in social change, which inevitably must have its cost elsewhere (because everything must have a cost), only to find that this word 'some' refers to some minuscule amount of little significance? It is not even clear from this statement what the direction of change humans have on the environment is (much industrial pollution in the early 20th century actually did more to cool the climate by causing more sunlight to be reflected back out into space (of course, this was the era when climatologists were obsessed by the coming of the next ice age) and our attempts to clean up industrial pollution has increased sunlight getting to ground level, thus increasing global warming, as well as increasing risks of skin cancer).

"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."

When will we see “Climate change IS happening; It’s happening RIGHT NOW; Get your head out of the sand, and your fingers out of your ears - if you don’t do something NOW, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST!” ?

This has always been so.

Yes, we need to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate; but this is very different from suggesting that we can, or ever could, stop the climate from changing.

Ofcourse, "if you don’t do something NOW, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST!", but even if you do something now, whatever you do now, the environment as you know it WILL NOT EXIST - that is what a constantly changing environment does.

Yes, good point. I should have perhaps better quantified climate change in this context. But I think it’s clear that it is the pursuit of the halting and subsequent negation of anthropogenic effects on climate that is a priority.

« Last Edit: 03/07/2007 15:34:45 by dentstudent »

Logged

another_someone

There are differences between arguing about a deliberate and determined conspiracy, which I agree is wholly implausible; and a systemic conspiracy, where no individual actually deliberately colludes to create the situation, but where each person independently is motivated to act in a way that has a collective effect as if it were a conspiracy.

Sure, but in either case, to speculate that this is a universal and sole aim of scientists, whether manifested independently or as a group when dealing with climate change is surely tantamount to slander. Of course, scientists are always looking for where the money is to create new projects, but this is a top-down system. Bottom-up approaches can work on a local and specific scale, but not on this kind.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I did not mean it was the sole aim, or even that it was a concious aim of any kind; only that the system they work under is inherently biased to produce that outcome.

As you say, scientists (like anybody trying to make a living) is going to be chasing the money, and if the money is there to promote research showing anthropogenic forced climate change, but not the converse, then that is where they will be focusing their efforts on. The very tone of the report above, suggesting that the public “people should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science” is clearly to indicate that he feels publicity showing contrary opinions might be confusing, and therefore by inference should not be desirable, and thus should not be heavily funded, if funded at all.

But the past can never be restored - all you can do is change to a different kind of future, but all futures will still be different from the past. Who is to say that greener cars will lead to a better future, or just a different set of problems.

As for responsibility - in what way are we 'responsible' for what? Yes, arguably we are responsible for our own futures (more so that than to become obsessed by responsibility for a past that has happened); but to what extent do we actually have control over a future that we still do not understand.

Yes, ok. There may be some semantics at play here in avoidance of tautological use of ameliorate – “restored” was probably not a good word to use. I wanted to state about the reduction of GHG’s back to a level within the natural cycle of amounts found in the atmosphere, so for example, CO2 to return to sub 300 ppm. These cycles can be detected from ice-cores.

Aside from the fact that CO2 has in the past been well above 300ppm, even up to 2000ppm; but in any case, is this not a rather arbitrary objective to take?

What matter is it to us if CO2 is at one level or another.

I note that nobody has set any actual targets for future climate as such. Nobody has set a target that says we shall not allow temperature to rise above a given level. This is because, despite claiming that CO2 is a significant factor in climate, they are actually incapable of providing any promises that reducing CO2 will have any particular outcome on the climate. So the limits we set for CO2 remain arbitrary, and nothing to do with any promised outcome for future climate.

My point here was the very nature of the human temporal and environmental scale contrasting with their personal relevance. Graffiti, crime and so on are more readily visible and tangible - people have a greater feel of the capacity to control these. You can report a crime or stop a car being stolen, clean off the graffiti and dog’s mess for example. Climate, its effect on the world and an individuals impact on it is a difficult concept to get across. In some ways, it’s the same as having the vote; the kind of “there are so many people voting, mine isn’t going to make any difference; what can I do, I’m only 1 person” mentality. It seems obvious to me that these everyday items are going to be more immediately important than climate change. There are probably hundreds more; NHS, schools, getting food on the table to name but 3. This is why it is not at all surprising that climate change may not be many peoples top priority. But under no circumstance can this be reason enough to ignore it.

But that would not explain why “56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change”.

It might explain why the 44% who believed scientists did not question climate change might not put it at the top of their priority list, but it makes no account for the 56%.

Even for the 44%, I would have to ask why climate change should worry me more than poverty of personal safety. Whatever the climate may be in 50 years time, or even in 10 years time, if I am destitute, or dead, in a pleasant climate, or comfortably well off in a hotter climate, there is not much of a choice to be made. After all, humans have for millennia walked out of the comfortable environment of home to seek wealth in some inhospitable place; so it is clear where their priorities lay.

I should have perhaps better quantified climate change in this context. But I think it’s clear that it is the pursuit of the halting and subsequent negation of anthropogenic effects on climate that is a priority.

Why? At what cost? Is it achievable at all?

Since humans are a significant component within the Earth's environment, it seems clear that whatever we do, we will always have an impact upon the Earth's environment (even our disappearance from this planet will have its own impact), so it is doubtful if we can ever not have an effect upon the climate.

But the, as we have noted above, this debate is not really about climate anyway, since the only targets are regarding CO2, and there are no actual targets set for climate (for good reason – we are not capable of setting such targets in any meaningful way).

But ultimately, what does it matter to us if a change in anthropogenic or not ? Does not what really matter what it is the future holds, and it is of little consequence to us if it is anthropogenic or not?

If the anthropogenic contribution is overwhelming, then it should make manipulation of the overall outcome that much easier; but so far nobody seems to be predicting that we will have any real ability to manipulate the final outcome – the only argument seems to be more about avoidance of fault – whatever happens should in no part be our fault, rather than actually having and precise control over whatever will happen.

So we are expected to place avoidance of fault for future climate as a higher priority than anything else, despite having no predictable outcome to such an avoidance of fault (excepting that other things inevitably get pushed down the priority list, so things that might have otherwise been doable are not done because we placed so much effort in achieving an avoidance of fault over that which we really had little control over the outcome).

This is a link to "Have your say" on the BBC. Please read a few of the comments, and then perhaps make your own comment on here. The ones that were up when I looked left me wondering whether humans really are related to ostriches.

another_someone

This is a link to "Have your say" on the BBC. Please read a few of the comments, and then perhaps make your own comment on here. The ones that were up when I looked left me wondering whether humans really are related to ostriches.

Firstly, I have long ago realised that the BBC "have your say" (or in fact, any web site, or other organ of public opinion, including this site) cannot be regarded as expressing the full diversity of public opinion. Each source of public opinion is in its own way selective.

None of the web based sources of public opinion will properly represent the opinions of people without good web access. It bis likely that people without good web access will represent very different opinions to those with good web access.

The BBC site is also merely a selection of submissions, and not all submissions are published - I don't know the criteria for that selection. The site also has very strict limits on the size of submissions, and so really are looking for sound bites of opinion rather than detailed discussion and explanations of particular points of view.

Also, it has not been uncommon for me to look at the "have your say" site on a day, and see it dominated by a particular point of view, and then look at it the following day to find all the people with the opposing point of view responding to the previous days posts.

Nonetheless we can see the effects of human activity in our daily lives, polluted skies deforested land etc, now we have the ice-fields going literally down the drain.So whether caused by human activity or not, the Planet appears to be going through some radical changes, and one way or another it is going to impact upon our lives, whether by drought/famine or pandemic or a mixture of both.But we can also see some changes in the energy that we use and pay for, coming up for a rethink.Much more for much less!